Best aircraft for IFR and Commercial

S

shyampatel94

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
116
Display Name
Display name:
Shyam Patel
What do you guys think that the best aircraft is for ifr training and commercial training?
 
One that looks like this up front

Avionics_Glass_Panel_Retrofits_hero.jpg
 
JimG. said:
One that looks like this up front

Avionics_Glass_Panel_Retrofits_hero.jpg
Click to expand...

If you choose one like this, just be prepared for your instructor to cover it all up most of the training time...:D
 
If you're doing both in the same plane, it would probably be the lowest level, easiest-to-fly complex plane you can find. Things which come to mind are the Piper Arrow, Beech Sierra, and Cessna 172RG Cutlass. And, funny thing -- those are the planes you'll find at flight schools conducting such training. What you don't want are large engines (cost), complexity (just adds to the problems), or speed (helps your brain stay ahead of the plane).
 
shyampatel94 said:
What do you guys think that the best aircraft is for ifr training and commercial training?
Click to expand...

Depends. Are you looking to buy one, or looking to rent a particular type? More details would be very helpful in giving you a good answer to your question.

If you're looking to buy, train, and flip I'd suggest a Piper Comanche 180 or 250. They can be had for very low prices, meet the necessary requirements, and shouldn't be too difficult to sell when you're done.

If you're just looking to rent, whatever's available that fits the requirements. You'll probably find an Arrow or 172RG on a rental line nearby, and there isn't enough of a difference between them to make the airplane much of a factor in where to train.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you're looking to buy, train, and flip I'd suggest a Piper Comanche 180 or 250. They can be had for very low prices, meet the necessary requirements, and shouldn't be too difficult to sell when you're done.
Click to expand...
Hull insurance with Comanches can be pricey due to spare parts issues. Do some checking before you commit to one, although I've heard the Comanche owners group has a good deal. Also, there's no reason to feed a 250HP engine during this training when you can do everything with a 180HP engine, so I wouldn't even consider a 250 Comanche.

Nevertheless, I'll stick with my original recommendation if you're buying something just for this training.
 
Ron Levy said:
Hull insurance with Comanches can be pricey due to spare parts issues. Do some checking before you commit to one, although I've heard the Comanche owners group has a good deal. Also, there's no reason to feed a 250HP engine during this training when you can do everything with a 180HP engine, so I wouldn't even consider a 250 Comanche.

Nevertheless, I'll stick with my original recommendation if you're buying something just for this training.
Click to expand...

I got a quote for 5 partners on a 260. 4 partners had little or no retract time, and each were 190 total hours or less. Quote was 2,200.
 
Ron Levy said:
Hull insurance with Comanches can be pricey due to spare parts issues. Do some checking before you commit to one, although I've heard the Comanche owners group has a good deal. Also, there's no reason to feed a 250HP engine during this training when you can do everything with a 180HP engine, so I wouldn't even consider a 250 Comanche.

Nevertheless, I'll stick with my original recommendation if you're buying something just for this training.
Click to expand...

You slow down a Bonanza to Arrow speeds and you use less fuel than the Arrow. While going slow at the onset of training may be good, getting things rolling towards the end helps one prepare for the interview King Air sim check.
 
F-16

But really why not do the IR in a cheap 150 or 172, then do the 10 hours for commercial in an Arrow or similar?
 
I used the Cessna cutlass ,which worked out fine. I owned a 172 at the time. I could practice most of the maneuvers in my own plane,speeds where only off a little.
 
Whatever's cheapest. Steam gauges work just fine!
 
asgcpa said:
I got a quote for 5 partners on a 260. 4 partners had little or no retract time, and each were 190 total hours or less. Quote was 2,200.
Click to expand...
That's over twice what I pay for my Tiger, and my Tiger's hull value isn't less than half what your Comanche's is.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
You slow down a Bonanza to Arrow speeds and you use less fuel than the Arrow.
Click to expand...
Six cylinders still cost more to operated than four.
While going slow at the onset of training may be good, getting things rolling towards the end helps one prepare for the interview King Air sim check.
Click to expand...
When you've given a couple thousand hours of instrument training, let us know if you still feel that way.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're doing both in the same plane, it would probably be the lowest level, easiest-to-fly complex plane you can find. Things which come to mind are the Piper Arrow, Beech Sierra, and Cessna 172RG Cutlass. And, funny thing -- those are the planes you'll find at flight schools conducting such training. What you don't want are large engines (cost), complexity (just adds to the problems), or speed (helps your brain stay ahead of the plane).
Click to expand...

Mooney C model can be had pretty cheap and is a great IFR platform that's pretty frugal on gas. Faster than the cheapest Arrow for less money.
 
LDJones said:
Mooney C model can be had pretty cheap and is a great IFR platform that's pretty frugal on gas. Faster than the cheapest Arrow for less money.
Click to expand...
Faster, yes. Less money, no. Same engine burns the same gas per hour, and Mooneys have some maintenance issues (especially fuel tank sealing). Parts are easier to come by for Pipers, too. You'll also be fighting that PC system when trying to do the commercial maneuvers. As an IR/CP training platform, I'd recommend any of the three I mentioned over a Mooney.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's over twice what I pay for my Tiger, and my Tiger's hull value isn't less than half what your Comanche's is.
Click to expand...

You also have what, 9000 hrs and over a thousand 'in type'. No point comparing premiums with a group of <200 pilots without complex experience.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
You also have what, 9000 hrs and over a thousand 'in type'. No point comparing premiums with a group of >200 pilots without complex experience.
Click to expand...
Rates for 200-hour pilots with 15 in type or an AYA PFP check aren't a whole lot higher. But if you compare like hull value/similar pilot rates for an Arrow versus a 260 Comanche, I think you'll find the Arrow comes in a lot cheaper.
 
I would stick with 180hp aircraft. Yes, a 250hp Comanche will not burn much fuel while you are loafing around during instrument training, still it is more than a 180hp version. I did some of my instrument training in a 260C, the nice thing is that if you are in a low traffic environment, you can get one more approache done per hour than in the Archer that I used for the rest of the training. As the requirents for IR training are based on hours, not number of approaches, that doesn't do much for you.

The downside of old complex aircraft like Bonanzas and Comanches is that they are harder to sell than a common trainer type like an Arrow. The problem with Arrows (if there is one) is that many of the cheaper ones have been beaten to death as trainers already. Not that many around that have been pampered by a single owner.

There is a '58 180hp Comanche on Controller asking 37k. Doesn't have a IFR GPS but a SL30, a KY97A, a GTX327 and and 640smoh. Without an ADF, DME or IFR GPS and a single NAV you are quite limited in what you can do for your IR training. The upside is that you will be good at the two kinds of approaches (timed VOR and ILS/LOC) that you CAN do and the examiner would only be able to test you on those either. If all you want is the piece of paper, that is ok, if you do your IR to actually learn contemporary instrument flying, you want an IFR GPS of some stripe.
 
LDJones said:
Mooney C model can be had pretty cheap and is a great IFR platform that's pretty frugal on gas. Faster than the cheapest Arrow for less money.
Click to expand...

unless you are comparing the worst peat up arrow to the most speed modded perfect C model Mooney the speed differences are negligible, under 5 knots different, maybe 7 at best.

Comparing to like birds less than 5 knots.
 
Ron Levy said:
Rates for 200-hour pilots with 15 in type or an AYA PFP check aren't a whole lot higher.
Click to expand...

Yes, because all the Yankee derivatives are fixed wheel trainers. Low complex time and low total hours make much more of a difference on retracts, be it an old Bonanza or Comanche.

Just browsing through Controller, Arrow IIs with engines less than 1000hrs go for 60-90k, some of them with 9000hrs on the airframe. If you go back to an Arrow I, you will find some with recent engines below 60k, but you wont find any exciting avionics there either. Yes, I like the Arrow, but for a number of reasons, they are more expensive than Comanches. While the percentage hull charge on a PA24 may be higher than for the PA28, the total insurance bill is going to be the same or less. Chartis for some reason doesn't insure comanches, so it is important to deal with a broker that represents all markets. Then of course, if someone doesn't buy the plane with loose change he finds under his car-seat, you have to take into account what the extra 20-30k sets you back every year. As to which one retains a higher percentage of its price on re-sale that is anyones guess.
 
Last edited:
I think if old complex a/c are priced right they sell very quickly. Considering that you can steel a Comanche 180/250 today compared to Arrow or other aircraft there is every possibility that you can sell it at purchase price in years to come.

Fuel just doubled again and when that happens everyone runs for tiny, simple aircraft but then soon they remember why they are pilots....to go fast and want to buy complex, hi performance even twins.... In a year or two we will be used to this fuel price as well.

I get inquires on selling my plane all the time and it is not quite at the same trainer level we are talking about. You should buy a plane right, not spend a bunch of money upgrading it other than maintenance and condition, keep it in top condition and when you are done with it set a price that assures a reasonably quick sale.

The problem is owners always want to start out at a super high price and negotiate and people just walk by and do not even call on them. First time buyers are rightfully tepid.

It is a rare time in history that we can consider a Comanche a first plane or training plane.:)


weilke said:
I would stick with 180hp aircraft. Yes, a 250hp Comanche will not burn much fuel while you are loafing around during instrument training, still it is more than a 180hp version. I did some of my instrument training in a 260C, the nice thing is that if you are in a low traffic environment, you can get one more approache done per hour than in the Archer that I used for the rest of the training. As the requirents for IR training are based on hours, not number of approaches, that doesn't do much for you.

The downside of old complex aircraft like Bonanzas and Comanches is that they are harder to sell than a common trainer type like an Arrow. The problem with Arrows (if there is one) is that many of the cheaper ones have been beaten to death as trainers already. Not that many around that have been pampered by a single owner.

There is a '58 180hp Comanche on Controller asking 37k. Doesn't have a IFR GPS but a SL30, a KY97A, a GTX327 and and 640smoh. Without an ADF, DME or IFR GPS and a single NAV you are quite limited in what you can do for your IR training. The upside is that you will be good at the two kinds of approaches (timed VOR and ILS/LOC) that you CAN do and the examiner would only be able to test you on those either. If all you want is the piece of paper, that is ok, if you do your IR to actually learn contemporary instrument flying, you want an IFR GPS of some stripe.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top